From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-12 23:51:04
David Abrahams wrote:
>> template<class Archive ar, class T>
>> void load(Archive & ar, T * &t, unsigned int file_version)
>> t = NULL;
>> t = new T();
>> ar >> *t;
>> delete t;
>If you were to do it this way, you should do "t = NULL" here instead,
won't this leak memory if ar >> *t throws an exception?
>using a T*& out parameter makes no sense whatever to me, and
>just seems to complicate matters, though of course I might have missed
>something important... ohh, are you using it for overload resolution
>so that users can provide an overload?
>Using the same T* for both >purposes like that prevents functional programming
would you like to expand upon that?
>I would prefer, e.g.:
>template<class T, class Archive ar> // but see below
>T* load(Archive & ar, unsigned int file_version)
> std::auto_ptr<T> t(new T());
> ar >> *t;
> return t.release();
hmm .. would you buy:
template<class Archive ar, class T> // but see below
load(Archive & ar, T * & t, unsigned int file_version)
t = NULL;
std::auto_ptr<T> ta(new T());
ar >> *ta;
t = ta.release;
>// Detection for operator new and operator delete
wow - that' s mouthful - it will take a while for me to digest that.
>> So, in light of the above, I'm not convinced that any change would be beneficial.
>That may still be true, though I'm not sure. It seems like the
>ability to override inplace construction is important for
array objects are never created by the serialization system.
The default array handling
ar >> array
for each item in array
ar >> item
There may be cases where this default handling is inapplicable.
In such cases the above default de-serialization of such an array will have
to be overridden with something presumably more elaborate.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk